Thank you for your question. I'm happy to respond to your requests:
I believe strongly that the blood of Jesus Christ was necessary for the satisfaction of the wrath of God against sin. Hebrews 9:22 declares that "without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." However, it would not have been sufficient for Christ to have cut himself and "let blood" flow, merely to heal and continue to live. We are told that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23a) - and therefore the Messiah had to die a bloody death. What qualified him to offer Himself, was the fact that he was a perfect and sinless man. Since "the life of the flesh is in the blood," (Lev. 17:11), his sinlessness provided a satisfactory sacrifice whereby He offered Himself, once for all - Hebrews 7:26-27.
However, the debate ought not surround the consistency of the blood, for I believe that since Christ becoming genuinely human was part of His qualification to represent us as a substitute, He must have possessed normal, regular blood. There is nothing mystical about the composition of the blood of Christ. The distinction is that it represented a sinless life. The issue of imputation must be understood here - whereby God attributes significance to the blood - and honors it - not by gathering it in some eternal laver in Heaven, but in that it was shed.
Hopefully, this provides you some additional food for thought.
Truly, the blood of our Redeemer and Lord is "precious" because it came
from "a lamb unblemished and spotless" - 1
Peter 1:19.